Citation Nr: 21030524 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-10 604 DATE: May 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to April 9, 2014, on an extraschedular basis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1989 to March 1993, including in combat in the southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. A videoconference Board hearing was held in May 2016 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In July 2016 and in February 2021, the Board remanded the currently appealed claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. In the most recent remand, the Board directed the AOJ to forward the Veteran's claim of entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 9, 2014, on an extraschedular basis for a decision from the Director, Compensation Service (Director). The Director's decision subsequently was associated with the claims file. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). The Board denied this claim in November 2019. The Veteran, through an attorney, and VA's Office of General Counsel, appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) by filing a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion). The Court granted the Joint Motion in September 2020, vacating and remanding the Board's November 2019 decision. The February 2021 Board remand followed (as discussed above). The Veteran essentially contends that he is entitled to a TDIU prior to April 9, 2014, on an extraschedular basis. It is undisputed that he does not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU prior to this date. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) (2019). The Board recognizes that the Director denied the Veteran's claim in February 2021. Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence in the record concerning the Veteran's post-service employment history. With respect to the Veteran's post-service employment history, he reported on VA outpatient treatment in February 2010 that he recently had lost his job because he "kind of got in a fight at work." He requested assistance from his treating VA clinician in getting back on anti-psychotic medications and getting his job back at that time. On VA PTSD examination in June 2010, he stated that he was employed full-time as a tattoo artist. He subsequently reported on his November 2016 formal TDIU claim (VA Form 21-8940), however, that he last had worked in approximately 2006 as a tattoo artist when he became too disabled to work as a result of his service-connected anxiety disorder. It is not clear to the Board whether and when the Veteran stopped working full-time, if he currently is employed full-time, or if he was employed at any time since he allegedly stopped working full-time in approximately 2006 (or 2010). Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, the AOJ should ask the Veteran to provide his complete post-service employment history. The AOJ also should attempt to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. 2. Contact the Veteran and/or his service representative and ask him to provide a complete post-service employment history. Conduct any appropriate development to verify the Veteran's reported post-service employment history, if appropriate. 3. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.